3 ms·
this post rolls out every OOP canard there is. OOP implies monolithic design; OOP models the world in a naive and impractical way (but functions and callbacks
by zzzeek 13y ago
this post rolls out every OOP canard there is. OOP implies monolithic design; OOP models the world in a naive and impractical way (but functions and callbacks are clearly just fine, obviously); OOP implies you'll have to "roll out" GOF (implying GOF is a "cookbook"; anyone who read it and understood it knows that this is absolutely not what was intended); "design patterns" are a code smell; only OOP has "design patterns" (in which case what exactly is a "promise"? look at this link, it even has "pattern" in the fricking name! http://modernjavascript.blogspot.com/2013/09/promise-patterns.html http://modernjavascript.blogspot.com/2013/09/promise-pattern...).
Really, node.js is clearly a great product, but the node.js community is often emanating that "smell" I got from the NoSQL movement a couple of years back; "we didn't understand how to use X correctly, therefore X sucked and that's why we use Y!"
edit: oh: "Node.js does require you to learn some new patterns, but they are few in number, and have broad application. " I see, node.js has patterns, but unlike GOF patterns, they don't suck. Got it. GOF was written decades ago and is all about C++ patterns as applied to GUI design in the early 90's (pre-Java); a modern app written in Python or Ruby would hardly exhibit much similarity to all but a few of the actual patterns in GOF book.
- _random_ 13y agoMany people don't want to care about types and correctness, they just want to be able to hack quickly in dynamic/weak languages. Future maintenance is someone else's responsibility,
- collyw 13y agoYou can write shitty unmaintainable code in a statically typed language, and maintainable elegant code in a dynamically typed language.